Contemporary World Problems Paper
Introduction
Humanitarian intervention has become one of the most highly debated topics in current international politics. An example of this that can found in the news is President Obama stating “we are not going to be getting into a military excursion in Ukraine. What we are going to do is mobilize all of our diplomatic resources to make sure that we’ve got a strong international correlation that sends a clear message,” in regards to the Russian invasion of Ukraine, more specifically Crimea. In this post Cold War Era, this issue of humanitarian intervention has been argued over, sanctioned, used without permission, and gained momentum and force in international relations. However, this problem international issue did not always exist.
The act of intervening in a different sovereign state’s affairs for humanitarian purposes has been an issue of public international law since the 19th century. The turn of the 19th century brought on an influx of issues going from a state level to an international level. Since then, international councils have been created to be solely dedicated to defining, regulating, and sanctioning humanitarian intervention. Today’s current authority over international security is the UNSC and their view on humanitarian intervention is as follows: “International law forbids the use of force except for purposes of self-defense and collective enforcement action authorized by the UN Security Council (UNSC).” While countries may adhere to these sanctions or completely ignore them, a new element has been added- should the humanitarian intervention be armed or not.
Armed humanitarian intervention is one of the primary international security problems today. This is an int...
... middle of paper ...
...ough there are laws and sanctions set in place to regulate these things, the fact of the matter is that there is not a clear definition or reasoning to go along with this issue. However the law has the power to change and catch up, which is very similar to the ability that the power of sovereignties and the definition of “armed intervention” has to change.
Works Cited
"Humanitarian Intervention: The Evolution of the Idea and Practice." Journal of International Affairs June-July 6.2 (2001): n. pag. Web. 30 Mar. 2014.
Lango, John W. "Is Armed Humanitarian Intervention to Stop Mass Killing Morally Obligatory." Public Affairs Quarterly 15.3 (2001): 173-91. JSTOR. Web. 30 Mar. 2014.
Wheeler, Nicholas. "Humanitarian Intervention in World Politics." (2008): n. pag. Abersystwyth University. Web. 34 Mar. 2014. .
Rieff alludes to this infusion to explain why humanitarianism is not working. The critic argues that humanitarianism, as a result of politicization, cultivated into a political blanket exploited by the “international community” in order to disguise and hide the lack of political action in humanitarian emergencies, thus delineating from the main goal of humanitarianism. To further his argument, Rieff recounts four cases of humanitarian emergencies in Rwanda, Afghanistan, Kosovo, and Bosnia in which humanitarian efforts were not useful, carried out, or even harmful in some instances. Rieff’s frustration with this relationship is relatable; however, While I agree with Rieff in regards to humanitarianism transformative trend, Rieff fails to expound on a number of key
Wheeler, Nicholas J. ‘Pluralist or Solidarist Conceptions of International Society: Bull and Vincent on Humanitarian Intervention’, Millennium: Journal of International Studies 21,3 (1992)
Humanitarian Intervention generally means the use of military force to ensure the preservation of life, human rights, and freedom. Therefore, many believe that external intervention is a direct challenge to the sovereignty of a nation. However, when gross violations of human rights occur “punishing criminals…is something that most people would support because of their belief that this is what justice requires... If punishment can be justified, so can intervention to stop a crime that is about to occur, or is already in progress” (Singer 120). Therefore intervention is not only needed but a necessity when confronting crimes against peace and humanity. Specifically “acts that kill or inflict serious bodily or mental harm on large numbers of people, or deliberately inflict on them conditions of life calculated to bring about their physical destruction, and when the state nominally in charge is unable or unwilling to stop” (Singer
In order for a state to be allowed intervention into a conflict on the international sphere, they must first gain approval from all the members of the United Nations Security Council. Through this it is assumed that the reasoning for intervening are assessed, and legitimate. It should be noted however that This however has been proven to be a cumbersome mechanism to adhere to the right authority aspect as permission has never been granted by the UN Security Council to intervene in the conflict of a sovereign nation. The international community is largely hesitant to label a conflict a ‘humanitarian conflict’ as this would imply the necessity of international intervention.
The idea of intervention is either favoured or in question due to multiple circumstances where intervening in other states has had positive or negative outcomes. The General Assembly was arguing the right of a state to intervene with the knowledge that that state has purpose for intervention and has a plan to put forth when trying to resolve conflicts with the state in question. The GA argues this because intervention is necessary. This resolution focuses solely on the basis of protection of Human Rights. The General Assembly recognizes that countries who are not super powers eventually need intervening. They do not want states to do nothing because the state in question for intervening will continue to fall in the hands of corruption while nothing gets done. The GA opposed foreign intervention, but with our topic it points out that intervention is a necessity when the outcome could potentially solve conflicts and issues. In many cases intervention is necessary to protect Human Rights. For instance; several governments around the world do not privilege their citizens with basic Human Rights. These citizens in turn rely on the inter...
Genocide is a pressing issue with a multitude of questions and debates surrounding it. It is the opinion of many people that the United Nations should not get involved with or try to stop ongoing genocide because of costs or impositions on the rights of a country, but what about the rights of an individual? The UN should get involved in human rights crimes that may lead to genocide to prevent millions of deaths, save money on humanitarian aid and clean up, and fulfill their responsibilities to stop such crimes. It is preferable to stop genocide before it occurs through diplomacy, but if necessary, military force may be used as a last resort. Navi Pillay, Human Rights High Commissioner, stated, “Concerted efforts by the international community at critical moments in time could prevent the escalation of violence into genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity or ethnic cleansing.”
The concept of humanitarian intervention is highly contested but it is defined by Wise to be the threat or use of force across state borders by a state (or a group of states) aimed at preventing widespread and grave violations of fundamental human rights of individuals other than its own citizens, without the permission of the state within whose territory force is applied.
The “Trojan Horse” exists in humanitarian intervention as it is mixed with considerations of national interest, such as state influence, national power, prestige and access to potential oil supplies. For example, in Syria and Sri Lanka, the responsibility to protect norm has not done very little to protect populations within states. The author notes that the international community's feeble responsibility on the Darfur’s crisis has failed to recognize the role of the “responsibility to protect.” The West’s disinclination to intervene in Darfur raises skepticism about the West’s humanitarian intervention techniques, especially after the invasion of Iraq and western strategic interests in Sudan. Nevertheless, the notion of the responsibility to protect is important in the protection of human rights as it seeks to confront atrocity committed by states through prevention, protection or
Barnett, Michael, and Thomas G. Weiss. Humanitarianism in Question: Politics, Power, Ethics. Ithaca, New York: Cornell University Press, 2008.
Humanitarian intervention is termed as the use of military power to intervene on another state without the endorsement of its rulers for the sake of safeguard and defense for civili...
...n space. Approach for humanitarian space has been changed since the attack on 9.11 in the US, which was the trigger that the boundary of military force and NGOs to became obscured. Under such circumstance, NGOs have become to face the risk of terrorism. On the other hand, it is unavoidable NGOs to spread their activities without military forces in dangerous places, thus this dilemma causes vicious circle. Although terrorism prevents spreading humanitarian space, terrorism could be caused by several reasons such as misunderstanding of NGO activities, or bad national mood for particular nations where military/NGO workers comes from. It is still argumentative that whether humanitarian space is collapsed or not, however at very least the notion humanitarian space had changed after global war, and also the risk of terrorism can affect the activity of NGOs in micro level.
The books Humanitarian Intervention: Ethical, Legal, and Political Dilemmas, by Robert Keohane and J.L. Holzgrefe, and Saving Strangers: Humanitarian Intervention in International Society by Nicholas J. Wheeler contain value information and analyses on the subject of unauthorized interventions. Humanitarian Intervention is a set of essays chosen by Keohane and H...
Western, Jon, "Sources of Humanitarian Intervention: Beliefs, Information, and Advocacy in the U.S. Decisions on Somalia and Bosnia," International Security, Vol. 27, no. 1 (July/August 1999) General format. Retrieved from http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/western1.htm
There is no static or perfect definition that can encapsulate all that may fall under the theme of humanitarian intervention. Philosophically speaking, humanitarian intervention is the idea that individuals have the duty to prevent human rights violations from occurring. Furthermore, the legal basis of humanitarian intervention is derived from the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Convention on the Prevention of Genocide and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Lecture 11/15/16). As decided by the UN in 1948, all nations have a responsibility to protect, or to prevent crimes against humanity, and while it was an important milestone for the recognition of human rights, not all those experiencing the crimes of genocide
The Responsibility to Protect (R2P) doctrine is an emerging principle, developed after catastrophes such as the Rwandan genocide to ensure such a large-scale tragedy would never happen again. It presents the idea that sovereignty is not a right, and that states should allow international intervention during acts of genocide, ethnic cleansing and war crimes. Under the R2P, the international community has the right to defend other nations from these tragedies; however, many nations will not be obliged to be bound by an agreement, due to opposing and conflicting views and objectives. This has been demonstrated in various instances when nations are in disagreement with the planned course of action and abstained as a result. The doctrine serves as a pathway for the world’s leading powers to invade another state’s sovereignty, which could divide the members of the Security Council. Furthermore, if enacted regularly, the R2P would cause more harm than good, leading to destruction and exploitation Due to this, not all of the international community are in disagreement and thereby not obliged to act. Many states will not consider acting when a tragedy occurs, due to distrust and ongoing suspicions with these plans. This ultimately devalues the authenticity and objective of the R2P. Firstly, my paper will outline the definitions of the R2P doctrine. Secondly, the effectiveness of the R2P and its relationship with different UN members, followed by case studies. Lastly, short analysis will conclude the paper.